Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ versus STATE


Notices under section 156 (1) and 171 of the Customs Act 1969 were not exempted from punishment and punishment in the notice.

1987 PCr.LJ 1091

[Karachi]

Before Nasir Aslam Zahid, J

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑‑Appellant

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Special Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1979, decided on 2nd November, 1986.

Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 156(1) & 171‑‑Notice under S. 171 of Customs Act not served upon accused‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside.

Abdur Rauf Khan v. Collector, Central Excise Land and Custom 1980 P Cr. L J 114; Azizullah v. State P L D 1981 Kar. 250; Abdur Rauf v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 19; Gufran Ahmed v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 620; Noor Dad v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 623 and Iqbal v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 598 rel.

Muhammad Akmal Wasim for Appellant.

A. Rashid Nizamani for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1986.

JUDGMENT

The appellant has been convicted by judgment, dated 6‑5‑1979 of the learned Special Judge whereby the appellant has been convicted under clause (8) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act and sentenced to R.I. for 1‑1/2 years and fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Akmal Wasim, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Rashid Nizamani, learned counsel for the State.

2. It is an admitted position that notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, was not served upon the appellant. Then it is also an admitted position that the goods recovered from the taxi in which the appellant was sitting as a passenger were not sent to the chemical examiner for report as to whether the same were Charas or not. In any case, conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside on the ground that notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 had not been served upon the appellant, which has been held to be mandatory in the following reported judgments:‑--

Abdur Rauf Khan v. Collector, Central Excise Land and Custom 1980 P Cr. L J 114, Azizullah v. State P L D 1981 Kar. 250, Abdur Rauf v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 19, Gufran Ahmed v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 620, Noor Dad v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 623 and Iqbal v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 598.

In the last 4 judgments referred to above, the convictions of the accused were set aside on the ground that notices under section 171 of the Customs Act had not been served upon the accused.

3. As a result, this appeal succeeds. The judgment, dated 6‑5‑1979 of the learned Special Judge in Case No. 120 of 1978 convicting and sentencing appellant Muhammad Sadiq son of Nannay Khan, is set aside.

M.Y.H./M‑28/K Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
tax advocates from Mamu kunjan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.